So the new DoJ will be investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s operation for violations including those “pursuant to the prohibitions against national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7 ("Title Yr')”.

I can see how it would be possible for him to violate the civil rights of US citizens, but do the protections set forth in the above law apply to illegal aliens also?

Well the relevant sections don't seem to discern between citizens and non-citizens, so they may apply. I'm skeptical as to whether the letter or intent of the law applies to the actions alleged against Arpaio. This is definitely something I'd leave to professionals to hash out, though I'd be interested in the opinions of some here.

It'll be odd to me if, after all the crap Arpaio has pulled, this is what somehow takes him down. Since, really, all we're talking about is taking the initiative in actually enforcing the immigration law, in co-operation with federal agencies (more or less).

I don't know much about Arpaio. I've seen TV spots that talk about his tent facilities, his pink prisoner garb, his weather-only TV provisions, etc. I don't know whether any of this has actually saved any taxpayer money or motivated any rehabilitation. I also saw a piece where he was reported to have ordered the short-cutting of an employee background check that resulted in an imposter being given a job inappropriately. So, I want to know more about Arpaio from those who actually live in the jurisdiction.

I have no sympathy for those incarcerated. Tent cities, pink jumpsuits, forced labor, no TV . . . none of those seem to drastic to me. In the county I live in, they floated a bond issue to build a new jail and sheriff office complex that was voted down by a wide margin. The county went ahead and built it anyway and committed the county to the debt on the vote of the commissioners alone. Nobody here had the bankroll to challenge it in court and enjoin construction; so we now have a new jail and plush sheriff offices and debt that the taxpayers didn't want. I'd rather have had mounted sheriff's deputies patrolling on horseback through tent cities with '76s and dogs. Problem is the feds took the state to task a few years back for maintaining inadequate places of confinement and mandated that more money be spent. I wish we had the old ones back and the feds housed in 'em.

To bring this back on topic, I think we have a society that is diametrically opposed to the legal basis for that society. IOW, the US Constitution says that all the powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states; however, the administration of laws has given the feds to ability to poke into things that they should have - and per the USC, do not have - any business being involved in. Instead of a pyramid of government with its foundation in local government structure surmounted by a less powerful/smaller county government structure surmounted by a less powerful smaller state government structure capped by the least powerful/smallest (in domestic matters) federal government we have the pyramid standing on the narrow point of local government with the huge federal portion balanced at the top. Seems to me that the laws of gravity would make all that topple with a little pushing in one direction - consistently.

I have no sympathy for those incarcerated. Tent cities, pink jumpsuits, forced labor, no TV . . . none of those seem to drastic to me. In the county I live in, they floated a bond issue to build a new jail and sheriff office complex that was voted down by a wide margin. The county went ahead and built it anyway and committed the county to the debt on the vote of the commissioners alone. Nobody here had the bankroll to challenge it in court and enjoin construction; so we now have a new jail and plush sheriff offices and debt that the taxpayers didn't want. I'd rather have had mounted sheriff's deputies patrolling on horseback through tent cities with '76s and dogs. Problem is the feds took the state to task a few years back for maintaining inadequate places of confinement and mandated that more money be spent. I wish we had the old ones back and the feds housed in 'em.

I think the problem some have with Arpaio's jail is that, well, it's a jail. Not a prison. It's my understanding that jails primarily house two types of inmates: those whose crimes warrant sentences too short to justify sending them to the "real" prison, and those who are being detained for trial.

Now, I can understand not caring about the former. But the latter? Those are people who are, in theory, currently innocent of any crime. People who may well be released after being acquitted. So prisoner treatment in jails is a pretty serious civil rights issue, since the level of due process required to land you in jail for a night or few is pretty much non-existent.

Your post would have merit if the conditions were inhumane. The inmates at the MC tent city are treated better than your average soldier in Iraq. They are fed, given medical attention, housed and not shot at.

Arpaio is a lunatic who sometimes has good ideas, but even then implements them in screwy ways.

The courts have had to stomp all over him for mistreatment of prisoners both pre and post-conviction.

The worst problem is that by numerous appearances, he's as corrupt as the day is long.

The classic example of all this coming together was when the Phoenix New Times did some digging into his real estate holdings. Basically, the guy has a lot more property than can be accounted for by his (stated) income. When they published the complete list, he tried to prosecute the reporters for "exposing where he lived on the Internet" (the online version of the paper).

The county attorney is one of his best friends and supported this insanity.

Basically, the moment we get an honest county attorney (who would be called a "DA" in any other state), "good ol' Joe" is going to have to move to Costa Rica with his ill-gotten gains.

Arpaio is a lunatic who sometimes has good ideas, but even then implements them in screwy ways.

The courts have had to stomp all over him for mistreatment of prisoners both pre and post-conviction.

The worst problem is that by numerous appearances, he's as corrupt as the day is long.

The classic example of all this coming together was when the Phoenix New Times did some digging into his real estate holdings. Basically, the guy has a lot more property than can be accounted for by his (stated) income. When they published the complete list, he tried to prosecute the reporters for "exposing where he lived on the Internet" (the online version of the paper).

The county attorney is one of his best friends and supported this insanity.

Basically, the moment we get an honest county attorney (who would be called a "DA" in any other state), "good ol' Joe" is going to have to move to Costa Rica with his ill-gotten gains.

If he's a lunatic then how does he get re-elected? I understand he been sheriff for several years. Mistreatment of prisoners? Unless he's doing some pretty bad stuff to them then that's probably a bunch of nonsense. I don't know about his real estate holdings. Maybe he inherited it.

Most of the criticism of Sherrif Arpaio is not directed toward his tent city or his pink underwear. Anyone who criticizes these things appears to be a whiner.

But he does seem to have a great deal of criticism related to mistreatment of prisoners(To the tune of costing the county something like $43 million dollars) and using his office and staff to intimidate reporters and opponents.

I have spoken to MCSOs at LE get togethers and to a man they have supported Arpaio.

Because they're certain to be objective.

Quote:

If he's a lunatic then how does he get re-elected?

Because voters aren't always that bright? I'm guessing they're not great at measuring the cost of past and future lawsuits against what increase in public safety he might provide.

Or, alternately, because Phoenix is basically about 2 million Lou Dobbs-alikes, one million Mexicans (by actual citizenship, not race), and maybe a million normal people.

Quote:

It will be. According to liberals it's a-OK for a government official to torture and murder Americans, but just let let him lift a finger against illegal aliens and he's gone.

Since when do "liberals" support torturing and murdering Americans? I'm confused.

Also for a lot of people it's the murders (along with some lesser includeds, like voluntary manslaughter) of inmates by detention officers that have us looking forward to Joe being gone. As I said earlier, I think it's kind of silly that this is what they've chosen to go after him for. Then again, if it's what they can prove and it gets rid of him? I'm fine with it.

Of course, the above only applies if you buy a word of what the New Times says. But the civil judgments that have resulted in these incidents suggests that some of these stories may have merit.

If the good sheriff wasnt trying his best to do something about the illegal invaders coming into our country we would not even be hearing about him.This sheriff needs our support .He is one of the only law enforcement officials who cares about doing his job and not just his retirement with benefits.If all of law enforcement were like the good sheriff and took the initiative he did we would not have a problem with the border or our economy for that matter here in california.Joe keeps getting re-elected because hes the real deal but unfortunately the enemy conspirators here in our own country will bring him down.Mexico laughs at us everyday.And our ancestors roll in their graves every night.Look how hard our soldiers fought to take this land for us and we give a little bit more of it back to mexico without them even firing a shot!Any body who says our enemies to the south are dumb is fooling themselves.they have outsmarted us every step of the way.We our our own worst enemy!Oh by the way that rapper dmx had to wear pink jumpsuit and he whined about it that in itself is worth having Joe as a sheriff in Arizona!Bush could have done something about the border after 9-11 but he didnt!shame on him.worst president we ever had.He single handedley ruined the republic party and got barry hussien [obama elected!have a nice day!

Last edited by tiberius10721; March 21, 2009 at 11:41 AM.
Reason: removed invective

We also need to kick the federal government in the backside and get them to work deporting those who have no legal basis in being here.

Once we have gotten the 10 or 20 million illegals out, and revoked the papers of those who legally immigrated here then helped illegals and gotten them out, then we can worry about Joe's minor problems.

__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

If Joe keeps getting re-elected he must be doing something right!I do not think living in a tent city is such a big deal.I had to live in tent citys all the time in the Army,and as far as the pink underwear go maybe that will deter people from going to jail there plus its funny!As far as chain gangs go since when did a little hard work hurt anybody!Illegal immigration has been turned into a non issue and it should not have!

How come he keeps getting elected ? Let me count the ways . The others mentioned (Kennedy , Barney Frank , Kerry etc.) are part of a gimme gubmint . Their job is to take from some and give to others . Sheriff Joe on the other hand has a definite purpose . Keep the county safe and keep prisoners until the courts have determined an outcome . One of the complaints is the segregating of illegals from the other prisoners . This is wrong ? NO . They were not being kept for violent crimes as many of the others were . It actually protects them . Same logic prevails when locking up a 12 year old . Does he go into jail population ? You know he doesn't .
Just look at the logic of the politicians that disagree with him . The illegals don't vote BUT their friends do and even they seem to be voting for Sheriff Joe . As for picking on reporters . Their job is to be disruptive . They take the shield of the First Ammendment and turn it into a sword of yellow journalism . They don't go out on a limb with facts but can just "ask questions" which have zero repurcussions . Imagine that any time someone does not agree with me on a forum I start with "Do you disagree with me because you are gay or do you really have a point?" I have implied something with no basis in fact but have still impugned this persons character in public . Joe has a job to do and he uses the best intel he can get . Just think for a moment who is committing the overwhelming number of crimes . Would it be a blonde guy named Svenson or ?????? Who is sneaking into this country ILLEGALLY ? Who is smuggling drugs ??? Look at the numbers . Now if he violated peoples rights with the same reckless abandon as say The IRS what would you say ?

He's not perfect by a long shot, but at least he deals with illegal aliens which is more than lots of law enforcement agencies do (and in some areas that's because the politicians in control specifically don't want to deal with the issue).

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.